a look at how America squanders nearly half of its food

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m pleased to report that the state of our Food Waste Union is strong! I’m not really sure whether that conveys that we’re wasting a lot of food or making progress on the issue, but, oddly, both are true!

The occasion of the actual State of the Union address provides the perfect opportunity to consider our progress on wasted food in America. So…how are we doing?

In the US, we’re making great strides in building awareness on how much food is wasted. And we have an ambitious federal goal–50% reduction by 2030–without much of a plan on how to achieve it. Yet neither the increased awareness nor that goal has translated into tangible progress–yet!–on minimizing the amount of food wasted. We’re ninth out of 34 nations ranked on the Food Sustainability Index for food loss and waste.

With an optimistic outlook, here are some highlights from the last year or so:

Wasted, a well-publicized documentary produced by Anthony Bourdain, had no reservations about calling out the stupidity of wasting 40% of our food.

The Rockefeller Foundation and many other family foundations are funding expanded work on the issue. In fact, I just heard an estimate that there was $18 billion available in private and government funding for food-waste-fighting initiatives 2017.

I recently had the opportunity to help lead a Penn course on sustainability and the food-water-energy nexus, with an emphasis on food waste. The bulk of the course consisted of a week-long trip to Italy.

We held sessions with UN FAO staff in Rome, interfaced with professors and students at the University of Bologna (like the amazing Silvia Gaiani), and visited the Food Innovation Program in Reggio Emilia. These exchanges were educational and enlightening, especially in promoting cross-cultural interaction. Each time, it felt like we were at the UN, and in one case we were!

The class engaged in plenty of experiential learning, too, visiting a Parmigiano Reggiano maker, a balsamic vinegar producer and a supermarket hell bent on preventing food waste via the Last Minute Market program.

Another exceptional experience in Italy is simply eating. Anywhere. We observed a pervasive passion for food in Italy. I won’t soon forget the care and theatrics that a Bologna waiter exhibited when tossing and serving a Tagliatelle Bolognese.

You’d assume that that passion would translate into less wasted food. And you could say the same about lingering memories of Italy’s post-World War II poverty and hunger. Yet, Italy’s food waste score ranks below that of the US and many other European countries in a recent sustainability index.

How can waste, or “lo spreco,” be so prevalent? The coexistence of Italian food waste and food infatuation illustrates the global spread of negative culinary trends. Bigger supermarkets and large package sizes enable and entice over-purchasing. Food costs are artificially low. Hospitality often leads to over-serving. There’s little appetite for leftovers or doggy bags. And maybe, just maybe, Italian food passion leads to perfectionism and picky purchasing.

Fortunately, Italy is doing its best to combat wasted food. In 2013, the government created a national Food Waste Prevention Plan to tackle waste. In 2016, the Italian Senate passed a more specific bill that offers incentives to businesses who donate food to charities and funds programs to tackle food waste in schools and hospitals. Meanwhile, public opinion is firmly against waste, as roughly half of Italians believe too much food is wasted.

Leading activists have run the Zero Waste (Spreco Zero) campaign since 2010. Italian retailer Coop collaborated with Slow Food to create the 100 Faces Against Waste selfie campaign. And Last Minute Market, operating since 1998, has streamlined the process for supermarkets seeking to minimize excess food and donate the rest to charities.

We visited an “ipermercato” (a hypermarket–certainly a more fun term than ‘superstore’), to see LMM in action. The market we visited was a Conad, which was fitting because Last Minute Market’s creators launched the idea in that chain. The store had multiple 50%-off sections to sell older goods. The items that didn’t sell after a day there would then be donated. Additionally, we observed imperfect produce and items with damaged packaging set aside for donation. To facilitate those tactics, the store has one employee, Mary, who dedicates half of her work time to minimizing waste and tracking food donations.

As we left the market, I reflected on the dual nature of our visit. It was both energizing and sobering. It was exciting to see the depth and breadth of the Italian food waste movement. Yet, it was both disappointing and puzzling to see how Italy–the home of Slow Food and dozens of regional cuisines older than the U.S.–had come to waste so much food. Because if the weed of waste can prosper in the garden of food-loving Italy, it can do so anywhere.

Related: send questions! All food-waste-related queries are welcome–big or small, true or false, named or anonymous. Send stuff to wastedfood {at} gmail or @wastedfood. I bet we could all use a diversion from politics…

—

Dear Wasted Food Dude,
Does a backyard composter produce methane? If so, should I / can I do something to reduce it?
— Kai R., Arlington, VA

Hi Kai,
The shortest answer is: yes. Yes to all of your questions!

While it doesn’t have to, backyard composting usually does produce some methane. The uber-simple version is that when your food scraps don’t have access to oxygen, methane is created. Commercial composting operations ensure that their materials have steady exposure to oxygen, whereas backyard composting requires us to make that happen. And we the people are not infallible, sadly.

How much methane does backyard composting create? Study results aren’t exactly piling up (compost joke), but in general, “Home composting can be a significant source of methane,” explained Sally Brown, soil scientist and Research Associate Professor at the University of Washington. “Home composters are less likely than municipal or regulated facilities to monitor aeration.”

Given that unfortunate reality, you have two choices: 1) dedicate yourself to turning your compost pile to ensure aeration; or 2) leave it up to the pros! Almost all commercial composters have that aeration thing figured out. They’ll also be able to compost meat and dairy scraps because their compost pile gets hot enough to process those. Then again, you’ll save money and carbon emissions (unless they’re collecting by bike!) by composting in your backyard. Decisions, decisions.

You also asked if you should do something about composting’s methane output. Hang on a sec — let me put on my Ethicist Dude hat. Doesn’t really fit, but here goes: Given methane’s harmful impact as a greenhouse gas and the scary reality on climate change, you really should. Methane is about 23 times more potent at trapping heat in our environment than carbon dioxide.

And part of the reason you really should try to limit composting methane is because it’s not a huge deal. Basically, you make sure you have about twice as much brown (leaves and other dry materials) in your pile to green (food scraps). From there, you basically just stir it around every so often. Just a hint of effort needed.

Still, some readers might hear that composting could create methane and opt out altogether. Backyard composting — with or without methane emissions — is still miles better than not composting. All of the food sent to landfill creates methane emissions (because it decomposes without air). Opting out is like choosing an SUV over a hybrid car because the latter isn’t an electric car. If the perfect is the enemy of the good, the bad is a much bigger foe!

Finally, it’s worth noting that processing your own excess has several intrinsic benefits. Composting forces you to notice the waste you’re creating, prompting behavior changes. It creates a personal, local supply of useful soil amendment. And there’s something to be said for self-reliance. That concept, like composting itself, is inherently virtuous.

Just remember, compost happens. But it happens better with a little effort.

Related: send questions! All food-waste-related queries are welcome–big or small, true or false, named or anonymous. Send stuff to wastedfood {at} gmail or @wastedfood.

—

Dear Wasted Food Dude,
My composting facility takes in food scraps as well as yard trimmings, soiled paper and compostable liner bags. I recently attended a food waste workshop and was surprised to hear comments that composters compete with food rescue groups for wasted food. What’s up with that? I’m a big supporter of rescue and donation!

– Perplexed in Pennsylvania

Hey Perplexed,

What IS up with composters and food rescue groups competing? The words “composting” and “competition” so rarely even inhabit the same sentence! Sadly, it does happen, and leads to some real tension.

Explaining that tension raises those classic questions of theory vs. practice and ideals vs. profits. In theory, most organics recyclers would rather not compost edible food because it defies the “reduce, reuse, recycle” axiom summarized by the EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy. Ideally, they’d only take scraps and food that were clearly inedible.

In practice, though, it can be difficult for composters to tell what foods could have been donated. And they are at the mercy of their customers’ practices. Still, I know many composters who are proactive here, notifying customers when they have large amounts of edible food in their bins. Some composters will even help their customers link with local food rescue groups (find yours here), to ensure edible food reaches those in need, not a compost pile.

Fortunately, the type of retailers, restaurants and institutions that divert to composting are prone to welcome food recovery, once they learn about that option. But inertia is powerful. Getting compost customers to separate edible from inedible — like organic from landfill — isn’t easy. Many potential donors find that the time, effort and storage space for potential donations can be real barriers. And unreliable collection by often-volunteer-staffed food recovery groups can be problematic.

Another factor at play is whether or not this “wasted food” can even be donated. If we’re talking about food kept at the right temperature and following all food safety protocols then all efforts should be aimed at redistributing it to hunger-relief agencies (who may even pick up that food). If not, following the EPA Hierarchy is best.

In some ways, organics recyclers don’t have much agency here. Aside from notifying these “overcomposting” customers and connecting them with local food recovery organizations there’s only so much a composter can do.

In addition to logistics, self-interest plays a role here. All businesses, including organics recyclers, need revenue. There is such a thing as cold, rational economic behavior. Since composting operations are paid by the ton, they don’t always quibble over the optimal destination of those materials. In the game of tonnage, the bottom line can supersede the optimal hierarchical action, especially when donation (or source reduction, feeding livestock, or anaerobic digestion) is not easily achieved.

You mentioned that composters are competing with food rescue groups for the same wasted food, but I wouldn’t think of it that way. The overlap is usually a small amount of what a composter is picking up. And that competition is almost unavoidable. To avoid any competition, a composter would forgo most customers and condemn all of those operations’ organic waste to the landfill.

Returning to the question of tension, I’ve spoken with organics recyclers about the friction between composting, source reduction and food rescue. Composters do receive money for accepting food waste, no question there. But for the most part, composters are on board with the EPA Hierarchy. As one North Carolina composter told me, “I don’t hide the fact that reduce and reuse come before recycling,” said Amy Brooks, of Brooks Contractor. “People say, ‘if we only had more food waste, we’d have more compost.’ But are those couple buckets of apples in your one cubic yard roll-off really going to make more compost? Not really. You’ll get a bit more tip fee, but there’s a better use for it.”

Related: send questions! All food-waste-related queries are welcome–big or small, true or false, named or anonymous. Send stuff to wastedfood {at} gmail or @wastedfood.

—

Dear Wasted Food Dude,

It seems that we can’t get through more than half a bottle of salad dressing without getting tired of the flavor. I hate to throw it out or let it expire, but it’s getting gross. For example, I have half a bottle of an Italian that was too tart and half a bottle of raspberry dressing that is too sweet. Besides as a marinade or taking to a party, any suggestions on how to use these up? -—Danielle C., Northern California

Howdy Danielle,

I thought your tale would end like an old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup ad, and you’d be praising Raspberry Italian dressing. But no.

How best to use up those bottles? Well, you may be asking the wrong dude, as I’m not a big fan of dressing. I eat my veggies raw and spend most days in pajamas. But it’s not about me. It’s about me using the internet to help you!

My reflexive advice is always smoothies and soups. The former won’t work here, but the latter could. I plugged in Italian dressing on BigOven.com and it spit out 1,488 recipe ideas! To be fair, plenty of recipes use dressing as a marinade or as…salad dressing.

Still, there were heaps of useful ideas, like using dressing to make pasta salad, cole slaw, and “Texas caviar.” The possibilities, like a black hole and the internet, are endless.

Also, I was kidding about the raspberry/Italian dressing mashup, but it may be worth trying. The blend may mellow both the tart and sweet, and it can’t be too different from your average raspberry vinaigrette.

The best way to avoid this situation in the future, other than dressing abstinence, is to buy smaller containers. And that is decent universal advice for food purchases. Any savings realized from buying the larger size evaporate when that item isn’t finished.

If you’re already buying small-ish containers of dressing and can’t seem to use them up — a problem for many people who live alone — I’d recommend whipping up your own small batches. And by small, I mean making enough for one or two bowls. I find that experimentation is rewarded with salad dressings, so just follow your heart!

Making your own salad dressing (or most anything), will save money, avoid waste, and allow you to experiment with minimal stakes! Just keep in mind that you have some time to ponder what to do with your dressings, as most kinds contain vinegar, a curing agent that makes bottles last, approximately, forever.

Related: send questions! All food-waste-related queries are welcome–big or small, true or false, named or anonymous. Send stuff to wastedfood {at} gmail or @wastedfood.

—

Dear Wasted Food Dude,
I’m preparing to do a home waste audit as part of an NRDC initiative where I live. Not sure exactly what my family and I will find, but I’m curious if we’re normal. How much food does the average family waste?
—Rod G., Nashville, TN

Hey Rod,
I’m taking a leap here, but I doubt you’re all that normal. I mean, you did just volunteer your family to log all food discards and have a researcher inspect your trash as part of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Nashville Food Waste Initiative.* That’s commendable and it puts you firmly in the forefront of food waste awareness, but doesn’t make you mayor of Normal Town. Then again, who cares? Normal is overrated (and quite wasteful)!

But of course, you were asking whether the amount of food your family wastes is normal. So how wasteful are most people? Here’s a good measuring stick: according to U.S. EPA data, the average person wastes about 20 pounds of food per month. That figure — more specifically 0.64 pounds per day — is slightly different than what you’re asking. It represents per capita U.S. food waste, or the total food waste generated in the U.S. food system (not including farms) divided by the number of Americans. But it provides a good ballpark estimate.

For a family, you can’t just multiply that amount by the number of family members. And that’s good news — there are economies of scale at play here. A United Kingdom study found that the amount of food wasted per person in a three or more person household is less than half of what it is in a single person household! (See page 12 of the study.)

That’s why, for families, I’d recommend using this ballpark estimate: we don’t use 20 percent of food we buy. So get out your supermarket receipts!

Speaking of normal, you know what’s not normal? Most people think that they’re ahead of the curve when it comes to wasting food. A whopping 75 percent of survey respondents think they waste less than the average American. Think about that for a second. But because you’re participating in the NRDC food waste study, you’ll soon have a fairly accurate idea.

Of course, knowing that your wasted food is being measured will undoubtedly alter your behavior in certain ways. But in the name of science — and normalcy! — try to shop, cook and eat like nobody’s watching.

And in the end, all that matters is that you learn from this measurement. As the adage goes, we manage what we measure. Seeing all of that embedded money, water, energy, soil nutrients, and pesticides going for naught should provide ample motivation to improve your food usage habits.

One final word of warning: if you’re planning do something about your food waste, that will likely put you squarely in the non-normal category, for better or worse. Yet, I think it’s well worth being unusual here.

Measure Twice, Cut (wasted food) Once!
—WFD

*NRDC is conducting a pilot in Nashville, Tennessee to test strategies to prevent, recover and recycle food waste at key points along the supply chain, including households. As part of that initiative, NRDC is assessing the amounts and types of food generated in Nashville. Assessments also will be conducted in other cities.

Matthew Orlando is the owner and head chef at Amass Restaurant in Copenhagen. He was the chef de cuisine at Noma (you may have heard of it…) from 2010 to 2013, when he left to start Amass. Prior to his time at Noma, Orlando worked at the renowned restaurants Per Se in New York City and The Fat Duck in the UK. The native Californian has now lived in Copenhagen for more than six years and was kind enough to share his thoughts on the cooking, culture, and Venn diagrams.

Matthew Orlando (MO): I think this came from working in high-end kitchens that did not take into consideration the impact of the amount of waste that was being produced. The only thing that mattered was the end product. What happened along the way was an afterthought. When I opened Amass, I vowed to never adopt this way of thinking. In fact, I vowed to approach cooking in the opposite way. There is no such thing as a by-product, only another product.

JB: How does that manifest itself in the day-to-day operation of Amass? Can you summarize a few examples of kitchen innovations aimed at using everything?

MO: At Amass, we save all of the stems from the different herbs that we use, put them through a lactic fermentation, dry them, and grind them to a powder. The powder tastes like seaweed. We then use the powder to season vegetables and different oils. We also save all of our leftover bread and soak it in the whey that is leftover from making our fresh cheese. The next day, we puree it and make a chip out of it. We save all of our leftover coffee grinds, dry them overnight, and mill them to a flour. We then make crisps out of them that we serve with a marshmallow that is made with the leftover tea leaves from the previous night’s service that we burn to an ash. We even save all of our water from our ice baths and circulator baths, as well as the water leftover from the bottles on the tables. We boil it up and use it to wash the floor in the kitchen.

JB: I’ve heard you talk about a fish called bakskuld—can you tell me how Amass’ practice compares to most Danish restaurants?

MO: Most restaurants use the bones to infuse sauces with a smoky flavor [and then throw them away]. At Amass, we look at the entire fish. We freeze the flesh, grind it up, and dry it. We then roast it in oil to make a smoked fish crumble. The skin we infuse in oil overnight. We marinate cherries and summer beans in this smoked fish oil. We infuse the bones into stocks to achieve a smoky flavor. After that, we strain the bones out of the stock and cook them overnight in the steam oven. We then roast them and serve them with different dipping sauces.

JB: Are other restaurants in Copenhagen similarly experimental with nose-to-tail and root-to-stem dining?

MO: BROR is doing an unbelievable job with nose-to-tail cooking. They are utilizing the absolute entire animal. They serve the entire lamb head in different servings: stuffed eyeballs, with the tongue and the meat of the cheeks and forehead wrapped in little pancakes.

JB: Has this “use-it-all” cooking become somewhat the norm in Denmark or is it only happening at places like Noma and Amass?

MO: It is definitely not the norm yet, especially at high-end restaurants. I think a lot of people talk about it but fail to follow through. There are just a few restaurants that are starting to realize the importance of adopting this way of thinking. For me, it is the only way that our industry will be able to cook in the future with the products we use now. Right now, we, as an industry, are cooking very irresponsibly.

JB: What comes to mind when you say we’re cooking irresponsibly? And how do we change that?

MO: As a whole, we are cooking with no thought of the impact that we are having on the environment. Everything is at our fingertips. Foods are being flown in from around the world with no thought of the carbon footprint that they leave behind. We are taking the center cut of meat or seafood and discarding the rest. How do we change? We need to look at what’s around us. We need to start cooking more locally. We need to look at the entire product, whether it’s meat, fish, or vegetables. We need to let the by-product of refinement become part of our daily repertoire.

JB: How do diners respond to these kinds of experimentations?

MO: The response has been great. When you feed someone a by-product of something else they had earlier in the menu and explain how you transformed it into something that is delicious, it is a real eye-opener. It becomes something they can touch and taste and not something they have just heard about.

JB: On the Venn diagram of New Nordic cuisine and avoided food waste, where is the overlap?

MO: I think that we have a great culture of preservation through salting and fermenting. These are both excellent ways to make items that are usually undesirable taste delicious.

JB: How would you compare the average Copenhagen restaurant customer to the ones you saw in New York at Per Se or in Britain at The Fat Duck?

MO: Diners in Copenhagen are far more open-minded. What I love most about cooking in Copenhagen is that the guests come to eat whatever the chef is cooking, versus those places where I worked previously in which the guest comes and butchers the menu by telling you what they don’t want to eat. The sense of freedom in Copenhagen is amazing. People are looking for something a bit outside the box. So if you do something that is too traditional, then people will tell you that it just wasn’t that exciting. This keeps the chefs pushing and looking for the next new ingredient or flavor combination that sets them apart.

** This interview originally appeared on the fabulous Food Tank site. **

And your question begs another one: what do you mean by “most important?” And how much of an impact do you believe one person’s actions have on the food system?

The reason I got all Socratic there is because you could interpret the most important choice to be the one that results in the most tons of avoided food waste. Or the highest number of meals saved, the largest reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or just the most dollars saved. Read More »

Very related: send questions! Please write in with any food-waste-related query, issue or conundrum. I’m not picky–questions can be big or small, true or false, named or anonymous. Send stuff to wastedfood {at} gmail or Tweet to @wastedfood. On to this month’s question…

—

Dear Wasted Food Dude,
Just curious: how much does extreme couponing lead to food waste?
Thanks,
Ivo D., London, UK

Yo, Ivo!
Extreme couponing, eh? That reminds me of the expression, ”all things to the extreme.“ Oh that’s right, it’s the opposite — “all things in moderation.“ Along those lines, I’m not a fan of anything done to the extreme other than composting and bathroom cleaning (not necessarily in that order). And that goes double for coupons.

The reason being, coupons are mostly just prompts to buy stuff that we don’t really need (not to mention food ads that many of us willingly seek out). Sometimes they prompt us to buy foods that we don’t even want just because the deal is so tempting. For example, it’s surprising that you could get a 2-liter Mountain Dew Voltage for 25 cents. But now you have a few pounds of magenta-colored sugar water that you probably shouldn’t even know existed (and is not exactly healthy).

Extreme couponing only pushes us to excessively purchase items solely in the name of saving money. And buying food to save a buck is odd at best; some harsher columnists would call it flawed thinking. And when we don’t consume our purchase, it renders any savings moot. I’m continually amazed by this paradox: we’re extremely price-sensitive with our food, yet blissfully unaware of how much food we discard and its cost.

Speaking of unaware, your question required me to do five minutes of Internet research on extreme couponing. In addition to learning about this behavior in general, I also landed on Extreme Couponing, a dreadful “reality” TV show. This show and the behavioral subculture of taking couponing to excessive, er, extreme levels feels slightly harmful. It’s as if they both just provide a way to advertise new, unnecessary products and enable hoarding. In one episode that perhaps represents these shortcomings, a family dumpster dives for a specific coupon, unaware, apparently, that they could simply save a step by looking for that food item in the same dumpster!

The following article by Jonathan appeared in BioCycle‘s June 2016 issue.

—

On May 25, the House Agriculture Committee held hearings on the issue of food waste. Based on their tone, committee members sounded determined to use government to prompt change in the food waste status quo. Or at the very least, help remove bureaucratic roadblocks to food waste reduction.

The Committee invited expert witnesses to essentially educate them on many facets of food waste and discuss potential federal roles for its alleviation. The only witness on Panel I was Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who set the table for the others by laying out the impact of America’s wasted food and reminding the committee of the federal 50 percent food waste reduction goal by 2030. She also plugged her more recent legislative answer: the Food Date Labeling Act introduced in May. That policy initiative received plenty of attention during the two hours of testimony.

Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) established a collegial tone for the proceedings in his opening statement. He praised former Ag Committee colleague Pingree for getting food waste on the Congressional radar. Conaway then reached across the aisle, verbally: “Tackling food waste in this country is, and should be, a nonpartisan issue that will be most successful by engaging everyone in the food chain, from field to table,” Conaway said. “It will take the collaboration of all stakeholders to be successful.”

That cooperative spirit feeling continued throughout the hearings in the Longworth House Office Building. In his opening remarks, ranking member Collin Peterson (D-MN) asserted, “This is an area where we can work across party lines.” Given that notion, the strong committee turnout —17 members — on a busy Hill morning, and the amount of time spent discussing the date label issue could mean that Pingree’s labeling bill may just have legs.